It is the only possible interpretation of what he said. He said "Ehlers and Boeser at 8ish each vs Marner at 13-14-15M? It's a change with the core and they're good players." He also said "Rantanen or Boeser+Ehlers would be interesting alternatives to Marner", and laid out the 2 for 1 comparison: "151 pts for 15-16M vs 90 pts for 12.5-13M?". When somebody called him out noting that "letting Marner walk for Ehlers and Boeser is a hilariously bad take.", he responded that "being opposed to that is actually a hilariously bad take". He said some of this directly to you, so I don't know why you're pretending otherwise right now.
Where?
Again. You don't make that concession without knowing that you can help and improve other parts of the team. It's not that hard. In a world, with no cap, you go with Marner. But that's not this one, and again, we don't even know if we should be re-signing cause this group hasn't shown jack in the playoffs.
But if you want to keep driving that point home and ignore it and not apply any context to the team, then fine.
It's what every successful team does. We had a guy that was a lot better at it, and he found a bunch of cheap and effective depth pieces to navigate us through a drained prospect pool, multi-year flat cap, and a high-end draft pick dying, and it worked really well, but we unfortunately let him go because of stupid nonsense, and then hired somebody who is pretty bad at it. But the new guy is getting saved by the old guy's prospects right now, and pretty soon he'll have a huge influx of cap space to held cover for his incompetence.
Well, It's a shame that success hasn't found this team for playoffs...
But I suspected as much, but obviously, your Dubas bias plays a part in this. What's the angle here? If Marner goes, then "we can, and we will" properly failed?
I don't have the stomach for those conversations or dealing with other posters hurt pride over that dude anymore.
Who haven't we been able to re-sign? We haven't lost anybody to cap. We've had turnover in our depth for a lot of other reasons, but not for cap, outside of the normal trying to avoid signing bad contracts. Depth turnover is pretty normal, especially for good teams. We actually probably should have done more of it recently. Just in the past year, beyond the core 4, we re-signed 5 forwards, 3 defensemen, and 2 goalies currently on our roster. Marner won't get in the way of re-signing Knies.
Depth turnover can happen, but it seemingly keeps getting more unproven and worse off. I'm not sure how relying on Roberston, Holmberg, and Pacioretty will hold for depth scoring in playoffs.
But the larger point is just to look at the holes in the team. There is no center depth, and still, after all these years, there is not much on RD, in addition to not much having in-term of picks, prospects or cap space to fill them because the last guy blew his brains out. And you need at least one of those to make additions to your team.
So, that leaves you in a spot where they couldn't even make a competitive offer to O'Reilly to stay, and now you'll say, "Oh, he didn't want to stay." Fine, but what about an offer for someone like Chandler Stephenson last summer? Nope, can't do that.
So, now they need to trade the prospects they don't have to get the center and D help they need, then try to fit them into the roster/cap structure that they can't fit into mid/long term plan.
Then rinse and repeat...
Roster turnover is one thing; poor rooster management is another.
You can fill the team just fine. It's not stars over everything. It's team over everything. Logic over emotion. Giving us the best chance moving forward over dwelling on the past. We haven't gotten the cup yet, but this model has been successful through the most difficult possible situations for this model, and abandoning it by getting rid of one of our best players - especially when we're about to get all the cap space we could ever ask for - is just going to make us worse. I'm not interested in getting worse. We've been doing enough of that already.
What are you talking about? What model?
What team has won with 3/4 guys making as much as the Leafs top guys?
Colorado changed a smaller piece for unrelated reasons, after winning with their stars, and they're worse off for it.
lol, right. Well, that's debatable, isn't it? May need some time to pass before we can properly judge.
It is, by definition, cherry picking. You're isolating a specific point type and specific time frame, and misrepresenting the impact of the individual. He gets paid for his overall impact like everybody else, and as I've pointed out, he's more than just a 90 point scorer. He's a 100+ point all-situations two-way force that is dominant offensively and defensively in every game state.
Except for the playoffs. lol
Anyway, Yeah, so it's cherry-picking when the stats don't suit you. Fine, I'll just ignore the 6 goals in 36 playoff games, then...
But the plain facts are he's not scored over 100 points in a season. He may be paced like that at times, and well done; I suppose he wants to get paid for that as well?
He'll be paid more than Rantanen because he's a better player than Rantanen. GMs understand that. Contracts aren't based on team success.
This whole thing is ridiculous. So biased.
Yes, the guy who has a higher PPG in the playoffs than Mackinnon is not as good as Marner.
Dearest of me...
He's paced more than 90 every season for the past 7 years:
2018-2019: 94
2019-2020: 93
2020-2021: 100
2021-2022: 111
2022-2023: 102
2023-2024: 101
2024-2025: 111
The individual seemed to take special care to be precise for the other players, and that's a pretty significant underrepresentation for Marner. Being accurate and consistent is not "glossing" anything up.
Great, I don't care what he paced for. I want him to be paid for what he actually did (90-99 points). Is that such a difficult request?
